Stephen Fry criticises 'childish' British TV

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...s/10326761.stm

Broadcaster Stephen Fry has criticised British TV saying it is "shocking" how "infantilised" adult programmes have become.
"I'm not saying TV should be pompous and academic, but it should surprise and astonish," he said.
The QI host said BBC shows Merlin and Doctor Who, were "wonderfully written" but "not for adults".

I personally think he has a point..

Especially about some US shows..

i like doctor who but i do feel you need a child in the room to justify watching it

and yet a US program like SG1 is equally aimed at adults and children and enjoyed by both

[Paul K]

Unfortunately Mr fry is correct, our television output is poor but then at least we don't have to put up with the American style of shoe-horning adverts in every 30 seconds.

[punky]

I thought Dr Who and Merlin are designed to be family programmes. Family programmes have to appeal to children.

If anything I think the opposite is happening. Adult shows (9pm onwards) are putting more swearing, violence, drugs and sex in. Even pre-watershed shows are starting to do this now.

Originally Posted by punky

I thought Dr Who and Merlin are designed to be family programmes. Family programmes have to appeal to children.

If anything I think the opposite is happening. Adult shows (9pm onwards) are putting more swearing, violence, drugs and sex in. Even pre-watershed shows are starting to do this now.

I wonder if he was thinking about the latest (US) episode of True Blood in his critique - I can't think of any current UK programmes emulating sex/drugs/swearing to the same extent as that did?

[punky]

Originally Posted by gazfan

I wonder if he was thinking about the latest (US) episode of True Blood in his critique - I can't think of any current UK programmes emulating sex/drugs/swearing to the same extent as that did?

The thing is US television is very polar. On the "network" TV stations (Their equivalent of our terrestial channels - Fox, CBS, ABC, etc) are fanatically pure (even censoring any swearing or nudity after 11pm) as they have to rely on advertisers and they want clean TV. It left a void on the premium subscription channels (like HBO - which has Sopranos, True Blood, etc) to produce television design to shock and offend. Curiously because the channels are subscription-based and encrypted they aren't bound by any watershed so you can get swearing on at 11am.

That said, the main cable channels in between (Comedy Central, MTV, FX, etc) have been starting to show more adult content at night lately.

---------- Post added at 00:21 ---------- Previous post was at 00:17 ----------

I think the best way to proving Stephen Fry right or wrong is to compare story lines of shows going back in time. What happens in Eastenders.Corrie now, 10 years ago and 20 years ago? What shows are on at 9pm now, 10 years ago and 20 years ago?

I can't recally exactly but I think they'll show they would be 'adultised' (if that's a word) if anything.

I think Stephen Fry is well wide of the mark here.

I think that the fact that that shows have more swearing and sex is no litmus indication that TV programmes are more adult in content and in standard than they were.
It's more an indication that maybe standards have slipped without any quality being added.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I think that the fact that that shows have more swearing and sex is no litmus indication that TV programmes are more adult in content and in standard than they were.
It's more an indication that maybe standards have slipped without any quality being added.

Or sadly what he may really be alluding to is the general "dumbing down" of UK produced TV. There is a real lack of intelligent, thought provoking, one off programs or dramas these days. With too much emphasis on a series being of at least 6 episodes duration and must appeal to young adults.

Originally Posted by punky

I thought Dr Who and Merlin are designed to be family programmes. Family programmes have to appeal to children.

Actually I think family programmes are essentially children's TV that appeals to adults. The difference is subtle but important. Remember, Waaay back in 1963 Doctor Who was commissioned by Sydney Newman, who was head of children's drama at the Beeb, and there has been absolutely no evidence that either Russell Davies or Steven Moffatt has wanted to change the target audience since the show was revived in 2005.

If anything I think the opposite is happening. Adult shows (9pm onwards) are putting more swearing, violence, drugs and sex in. Even pre-watershed shows are starting to do this now.

That is the very essence of the problem that Fry has identified. It is a childish and immature view to consider swearing to be intrinsically grown up. That's why teenagers and uneducated young adults do it so much.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Chris

Actually I think family programmes are essentially children's TV that appeals to adults. The difference is subtle but important. Remember, Waaay back in 1963 Doctor Who was commissioned by Sydney Newman, who was head of children's drama at the Beeb, and there has been absolutely no evidence that either Russell Davies or Steven Moffatt has wanted to change the target audience since the show was revived in 2005.

Indeed, Dr Who was apparently originally commissioned as a way to make history interesting for children (hence the idea of a time traveller having adventures in various times).

Russell Davis actually said something in an interview that I believe backs up your assertion about him not wanting to change the target audience. He was asked whether the Doctor will ever appear in Torchwood. He said that it would not be appropriate for the Doctor to do so, as the Doctor the title character in a show aimed at children.

---------- Post added at 14:12 ---------- Previous post was at 14:05 ----------

Originally Posted by punky

I think the best way to proving Stephen Fry right or wrong is to compare story lines of shows going back in time. What happens in Eastenders.Corrie now, 10 years ago and 20 years ago? What shows are on at 9pm now, 10 years ago and 20 years ago?

I can't recally exactly but I think they'll show they would be 'adultised' (if that's a word) if anything.

I think Stephen Fry is well wide of the mark here.

The problem is that a lot of TV companies see "adult" TV programmes as containing things like sex, nudity, violence, drug taking, drinking (alcohol) and swearing. They go for the shock. This is why soaps are increasingly tending to show things that shock, but are unlikely to happen (e.g. all the soaps have included at least one murderer, yet the average street is unlikely to see a murder).

It is possible to write a good drama that does not break any of the Watershed rules (so can be broadcast in the day), but would still be interesting for adults.

Ray Connolly of the Daily Mail has come to Fry's support.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ste-mouth.html

I couldn’t help but think that he was dead right. And I’m very glad he said it because — although I might have had some differences with some of his outbursts — it takes someone with his broadcasting clout to make his colleagues sit up and listen.
Most home-grown, peak viewing time television is no longer grown-up. With even the supposedly high-class BBC2 schedules stuffed with reality pap about cooking, DIY, frocks and game shows, while BBC1 and ITV continue with their competition dramas almost invariably ending in tears, it’s nearly all escapist fun wherever you look.
Mainstream television has become something you can watch while you’re doing something else — anything else — but not something to sit down and watch seriously.